If global warming is going to change the way we live, secrecy is not an option

How much confidence should we have, really, in the credibility of the scientific research that underpins global warming?

For years we've all been endlessly assured by the great, green powers-that-be that the science behind man-made global warming is rock solid, gold standard and, of course, "peer-reviewed."

Well, a new book by British environmental journalist Fred Pearce, one of the world's leading commentators on climate change, suggests cause for serious concern.

The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming, is a compilation of Pearce's reporting on the Climategate scandal, mainly for the Guardian newspaper.

Neither Pearce, nor the Guardian, is a climate denier.

Pearce firmly believes in the theory of man-made global warming and argues throughout The Climate Files that the vast majority of scientific research supports this view.

However, unlike many environmental journalists, Pearce was not so blinded by green ideology so as to ignore or downplay Climategate.

He readily acknowledges it has had a hugely negative impact on the public's perception of the credibility of climate science, with good reason.

In that context, Pearce recounts the startling testimony of world-famous/infamous climate scientist Phil Jones, before a parliamentary inquiry by British MPs into Climategate.

Jones, whose controversial e-mails to fellow climate scientists were at the very heart of the Climategate scandal, is the director of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

It's considered by many experts to be the world's leading research institution into climate change, on which the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change heavily relies for temperature and other climate data.

Jones was questioned about many controversies involving his own conduct and that of the CRU and UEA over a number of years in attempting to, among other things, subvert Freedom of Information requests from critics seeking raw data about the CRU's research.

One of them was Canadian climate blogger, mathematician and former mining executive Steve McIntyre, without whose efforts to obtain this information, concludes Pearce, "Climategate would not have happened," regardless of whether one sees McIntyre as a hero or villain.

In any event, the constant defence of Climategate apologists has been that while climate scientists understandably weren't willing to hand over their raw data and research to any Tom, Dick or Steve - fearing it would be misused by skeptics - the public could rest assured this research was being vigorously tested and "peer-reviewed" by fellow climate scientists.

Well, here's Pearce's account of Jones' direct testimony before the parliamentary committee on the issue of peer review.

"Jones insisted that what he did, for good or ill, was what his fellow climate scientists did. They didn't publish all their data and methods because, 'it hasn't been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should be, but it's not.' Following that came the most startling observation, when Jones was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication had requested to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. 'They've never asked,' he said."

Thus, Pearce observes: "The rigour of peer review came crashing down before our eyes."

Indeed. And absent credible peer review, how can the public possibly have confidence in the work of the very climate scientists who insist peer review is the rock upon which their research is built?

Especially given the huge implications climate science has for how we will live our lives in the future, how and how much we will be taxed, and what freedoms we will and will not enjoy.

Simply having panels of sympathetic academics (or politicians) take a cursory look at the work of climate scientists and pronounce it sound - what happened following Climategate - doesn't cut it.

Indeed, Pearce argues the vast majority of climate research is credible and the case for climate science will be helped by making it publicly available.